originally posted by: face23785
Anyone who thinks an AR-15, one of the so-called "assault weapons" they want to ban, is useless except for mass murder, I encourage you to give this
video a watch:

Disclaimer: Yes, I know it's virtually useless to post this because some people are religiously dedicated to remaining uneducated on this topic, but I
figured it was worth a try. If just one person has their eyes opened, mission accomplished.

That AR15 looks like the perfect weapon for defence.
I can see why people buy them.

30 rounds? Just imagine each bottle is a head. Seems more offensive to me.

What is he 'defending from' an entire police station?

To me, clip size seems to be the most appropriate weapons warranted for defense. Most people that own guns are good at aiming them.

Using a real-life example, my friend who commonly is in the Mountains, shoots most things that are dangerous with a Revolver, bears for example, but
he also specifically has a higher capacity handgun for Mt Lions, that can be whole families together.

That aside, criminals run when they hear gun fire, and I just cannot imagine pumping 5 bullets into 5 difference criminals coming at you, and then a
6th coming after that. 30 is too many bullets. The shotgun is arguably too few for 3 intruders, but most of the time the sound alone is what is making
them run and the AR seems like overkill to the highest degree.

Sure you 'could' use that for defense, but you 'could' also kill 25+ people before you even needed to reload in the correct setting.

I was going to leave this alone, mainly because the title is pure click bait begging for flags and stars (here’s your trophy!).

As an independent who is nowhere near far right, perhaps I can share a few facts with you and you might “get it”.

1. I own several handguns.

Fact - for each and every purchase I had to complete paperwork at the dealer, the dealer called the FBI’s NIC system, and my background was
checked...E.V.E.R.Y. S.I.N.G.L.E. T.I.M.E. Amazing huh? A law already in place was followed.

Fact - one of these handguns I bought on the internet. To receive my purchase, it had to be sent to a Federally Licensed gun dealer who then had me
fill out paperwork, ran my background through FBI NICS and O.N.L.Y. after cleared by FBI was I allowed to take possession. Law in action...neat,
huh?

Fact - I purchase an annual membership at an indoor gun range and visit once or twice monthly, rotating through my handguns, running 50 rounds or so
through the ones with me that day, and ensure I can hit exactly what I’m shooting at, where I intend to shoot it (within an inch ot two, give or
take).

Fact - I am licensed to carry. To receive that license, I had to attend a six hour class and then fire 50 rounds within the 8 ring of a silhouette
target at various distances while timed. 3 yards, 7 yards, and 15 yards. There were some who sat through the class with me but did not pass the
qualifying step. No license for them...what? The law was followed? Say it isn’t so...

Fact - Gun control does not reduce crime - it increases the amount of criminals buying guns out of trunks (or stealing them). See Chicago, Baltimore,
NYC, et al.

Fact - Actually enforcing A.N.D. prosecuting the gun laws aleady on the books W.O.U.L.D. make a dent in violent crime. You know, like getting the
guns from the thugs in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et. al., throwing said thugs on super max prisons, and throwing away the keys.

Fact - if people with gun purchasing disqualifiers do not lie on their apllications, they do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with arrests for
domestic abuse do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with felony convictions...well, I think you get the point.

Fact - unless you’ve actually read all the documents that must be completed to L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy a gun or be awarded a license to carry, please
refrain from making suggestions on how gun laws should be changed—mainly because that indicates you don’t even know the ones already in place.

I do think it ridiculous to measure gun violence as a seperate category of violence. Its prejudicial and creates an arguement over fallacy.

Violence is violence. Dead is dead.

Exactly.

Regardless of means, it is the mentality of the person committing the crime.

It's so strange to see people fighting over the object, versus the person(s). Until the actual reason behind killing is dealt with, the weapon used
doesn't matter.

It's easy to see how the media and politicians play off e achother. If the weapon changed to axes and the media was reporting on dozens of axe murders
we would be looking at laws limiting use for axes.

Sure the violent crime rate has continually trended down. Our death by gun rate has not...

Really the problem in America is the war on drugs.. it created a black market worth billons and all the stuff that comes with it.. the police and
citizenry ratchet up, which requires the black market to as well.

That and the media scaring the hell out of people.. in the case of a break in 99.9999% chance the burglars would be scared to death of you.. but we
all expect a rape seriel killer..

First...its not a "clip". Its a magazine. Clips are used by guns like a Mosin Nagant or M1 Garand. Not modern rifles typically. Seeing that term
used is a tell that the person using it isnt well versed with firearms.

Second, and more importantly, when my life is in the balance i go by the adage of "its better to have and not want than need and not have". I stress
about my daily carry only having 6 round mags (a pocket sized 40 cal).

Someone else doesnt get to second guess. Or postulate what they think an irrational criminal would/should do before deciding which rights i get to
keep. Think about that....if an attacker doesnt do what you seem to believe they will do (run) innocent victims die. Would you bet your families
life on you hypothetical always being correct? I wont.

yes you are correct always has been and always will be. no matter what you or any other gun crapper try to say.
and modifying them is illegal has been that way since the NFA. adding external accessories are not modifying the internal works which are still
incapable of switching.

The issue is a culture that allows that to puts high capacity(capacity applies in any case correct?) guns in the arms of people less interested in
defense.

I guess my case and point is you want one of these to defend yourself as 'culture' congratulations, the enemy is now more equip because of overzealous
availability defense. That should be obvious right? The standard is being raised IMO as well, before less lethality firepower overall was required to
fight the 'boogieman' of home intruders. Your philosophy is cyclical, you will inevitability need RPG's and Landmines at this rate.

The tool for the job, we're clearly not talking about the same thing. Did you read my story about fighting wildlife with the Revolver? If more than
that is necessary(like in the story) you take more.

i read your story. The guys not very bright. And i wont use that story as a risk
barometer when its my pulse on the line.

My issue is this man(You asked who) in the video declares this AR-15 is a viable weapon for home defense, and I agree.

My grievance is this leading to the home intruders having AR-15s.

Well...a 12 ga is the best home defense. Shortest barrel possible. An AR us is pretty low on the list honestly. Too much swing radius for my
liking. Nometheless,its slippery slope logic. Intruders may or may not arm up more. I think if they expect to be shot at to begin with they wont
enter. And will always stick to the easily concealed handgun.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.